Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

The Family-Friendly Congress?

By The Editors November 10, 2006 10:48 amNovember 10, 2006 10:48 am

Judith Warner has written an Op-Ed for the Times on the new congress; it appears in the paper and on the Web site today, Friday, Nov. 10. Read the rest of Warner’s Op-Ed, then post a comment about it below. — The Editors

WHILE the excitement over Nancy Pelosi, most likely to be our first female speaker of the House, is still fresh, and while those of us who care about these things are still bubbling over the election of the highest number of women to Congress in history, I’d like to issue a challenge: Ladies, step up to the plate on behalf of the rest of America’s women — and their families.

This shouldn’t be a radical idea. Ms. Pelosi has, after all, spent months now reminding us that she is not merely a capable leader, not just a whiz-bang political fund-raiser, but, first and foremost, “a mother and a grandmother.”

That’s lovely for her; but if Ms. Pelosi’s experience of motherhood is to have any meaning for the rest of us, or any relevance to her life as a politician, we’ve got to see some follow-through. . . . (more).

American undeniably needs broad spectrum public health care and family friendly initiatives, bringing us in line with modern European nations. However, let’s not forget the men in all of this. Let’s make sure the public debate removes the stigma hovering over men who stay home to take care of their children, or say “I can’t do a late meeting because I want to be home for dinner with my kids.”

Let’s put the men back in family values, thereby opening up space for women to work at careers that satisfy them, and for men to enjoy the families they helped create.

I agree so wholeheartedly I can hardly catch my breath. Yes to these kinds of family values, yes to making them a priority so that all families have a fighting chance for their kids to succeed in school, in work, in life. Yes, yes, yes.

I like the bill that would give low income stay at home parents some help to stay home and take care of their own kids. Childcare subsidies always seem biased towards helping out working parents, which isn’t really fair at all.

I’m not sure how inflexible workplaces would be driving “mothers” away exclusively. If anything that inflexibility would be driving parents of both genders away. Although clearly not in equal numbers, since women seem to choose to opt out much more often than men.

But it’s time to stop looking at these issue from a female only perspective, and approach them instead on gender neutral terms.

Right on JW! It’s time to ascertain the Bush-GOP committment to their “traditional family values” mantra. And, shouldn’t “Homeland Security” focus on “Home” at the grassroots level if we’re really going to realize “Security”?

While there are increasing stresses placed on the average family in America, they pale in comparison to the challenges that families face in many lower income countries. Family structure is partly shaped by economics, and in many developing countries children typically live not only with their parents, but with aunts, uncles and grandparents, who share responsibility for caring for children while working long hours. In America, we may be able to legislate that companies must provide greater flexibility for employees, so that we can maintain our atomized family structures (where extended family members typically live in another city), but in the long run, we are competing economically with cultures where “the family” has adapted to economic hardship. And while such countries often lack the resources we have, it doesn’t seem that this has destroyed families. In some way, it seems to bring families closer together. Romanticizing perhaps, but we should recognize that when we talk about saving “the family” in America, we generally mean that we want to save our anglocized version.

I couldn’t agree more. Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the highest ranks of Congressional power serves to underscore that career women are an integral and essential part of the workforce. Now that much of the Republican agenda has been repudiated by the American people, maybe we can begin the dialogue about how to help families by also repudiating the myth of the ideal family promoted by right-wing ideologues. It makes sense that without supportive policies and incentives, many women will “choose” to stay home full-time. This “choice” will remain a false one in the absence of real policy options that support the rights of both mothers and fathers to seek fulfillment at home and at work.

While I may agree to programs that assist the poor in managing their families with less stress and more efficiency, I very much disagree that a well-balanced family life is available only to the “very privileged.” A successful family doesn’t require a six-figure income; it is much more the product of well-reasoned priorities and the determination to stick to them.

It will be interesting to see what happens as women move into more powerful positions. I believe it may come as a surprise to those who imagine we must be anything less than strong. Most women, when faced with a need to defend those things and people they care for, particularly their children and the future of those children, are quite capable of striking with effective force, and have no problem making the decision to do so. It is time to do away with the true legacy of the Reagan era -the approval of unmitigated greed as a life ambition- before it does away with the United States.

Yes, yes, yes. Let’s not waste time patting ourselves on the back for tossing the bums out. Now is a time for action. It’s also a time to let Nancy Pelosi and other Dems know that though they have come into power as a protest vote, that we can and should reframe the debate about ‘democratic’ and ‘liberal’ issues as really centrist, human issues. Otherwise I fear that the results of this midterm election will only be a blip on the screen and the GOP will again stake claim on framing the debate.

I disagree wholeheartedly. This is exactly what we should not do up front, in fact it’s a blueprint for handing back our government to the Republicans in two years. It’s exactly what they want us to do.

We won this election by focusing on the two great failures of the right, both of which were supposed to be their strengths: the war in Iraq and government fiscal responsibility. To win on a platform that claims that Republicans wasted Clinton’s surpluses and couldn’t control their own rampant spending coupled with irresponsible tax cuts, and immediately follow up with a massive new spending program of our own, is to say that we also can not control ourselves when we gain a little power.

Now is the time for fiscal restraint. We need to strip the budget of all of the earmarks that the Republicans award each other and add none of our own, repeal every tax cut that benefits the wealthy over the middle class, and send Bush a budget that comes as close to balancing as we can get it. Then, when the war is over, we can focus on our own new spending priorities.

How can anyone with a straight face talk on the one hand about preserving time for families while on the other suggesting massive tax increases? Say what you want about the Dems. ideas to only raise taxes on the rich (morally bankrupt to begin with) but Clinton said the same thing in 1992 before the big middle class tax increase of 1993, and here in California the top tax rate (9.8%) kicks in on marginal income above $38,000.

I love how you Democrats talk about conservatives wanting to control people’s lives, and then demand that the government pay for all of our education, healthcare, and retirement in addition to dozens of other things. Then on top of that you feel the need to tell businesses how many hours its employees can work, how much it has to pay its employees, etc.

Rock on, Judith Warner. I agree with the comment above by Mike Hochleutner. Many cultures have been housing multiple generations under one roof for thousands of years- China, for example, has only recently started to toy with the idea of a pension system in response to the dearth of children available to take care of their elders. Multi-generational or homes with multiple working adults serve as a safety net that depends more on family relationships than monetary wealth.

Ms. Warner’s column is positively misguided and depressing. If the Democrats want to assure self destruction they need only proceed with a course of action that punishes the people that make responsible life decisions and realize that there are trade-offs. Yes, there are those to whom life has dealt a bad hand. That is unfortunate. Life is not fair. But the federal government does not have the right, nor should they have the ability, to promote the welfare of one citizen over the welfare of another.

If you think about it, it is largely what this administration has done promoting the welfare of the privileged on the back of the middle class and poor. One is no more acceptable than the other.

I suggest that Ms. Warner try reading the Constitution beginning with the Preamble. Hopefully our new congress will realize this.

Ms. Warner returns to the wish list of women 30 – 40 years ago. Now 30 years agoe I was teaching a course in women’s studies – a time when I suspect Ms. Warner had not yet entered high school. I went on to finish my post-grad degrees including a law degree and practice in an area of law then nicknamed “the men’s locker room of law.”

What Ms. Warner overlooks in her “wish list” is the impact on the small businesses and employers – and I don’t mean those employers with less than 200 employees but with only 2, 5, 8…. the typical small small of a law office or a physician’s office or the small local grocery store. Most people do not work for a large company like the NYT or a mega-business like Walmart but someplace where they are the ONLY person doing their particular job. I’ll take her “dream list” in order:

(1) Paid family leave and guaranteed sick leave

Employers with less than 50 employees within a geographic area are exempt from FMLA. In the village and township where we now live, only 1 employer out of 150 is affected by FMLA. The other 149 are small businesses with 2 or 5 or 10 employees. Not one of those small businesses can afford to have an employee gone on “family leave” where they have to hire a temporary replacement (necessary because the staff is so small that there is no one to cover their job.) Temporary replacements command a premium price in excess of the wage for a regular emloyee doing that job, and are functionally useless snce they walk in and don’t have a clue about the business or the tasks which need done; and by the time they are trained, the peron on leave now wants to return.

And add PAYING the absent employee to all of this – which well over doubles the cost of filling that job??? Even if such a requirement was imposed, women of child bearing age would find themselves hearing “we choose the other candidate for the job – they were just a better fit with the team.” Impose to any conditions requiring special treatment for a class of employees and the members of the class will find that employers get very creative at giving bland reasons for not hiring them – good luck proving otherwise. (And my specialty was labor and employment law.)

Before retiring my partner and I had a small highly specialized practice and employed a highly skilled support staff of 3. They had to be there when the office was open and the work needed to be done. Clients would not wait until one of them cam back from “family leave.” If in a trial, my assistant had to be there every minute – no leaving to take little Johnny to something – and the court would certainly not rearrange the schedule to accomodate. Such a thing was utterly impracticable.

That is the reality outside of New York and Washington.

Just do without the person who wants “family leave” to play with the kids?? Sorry, but that is grossly unfair to those left behind – unless the person on leave is prepared to kick in an additional amount of $$ to the one stuck doing their work.

Nearly 30 years ago as a young lawyer, I was informed that my caseload would increase by nearly 25% because another woman was going on maternity leave. I responded that I would NOT do it – and if the woman wanted to play mommy, that was her problem. I saw no reason to have to increase my work by 25% so she could voluntarily choose to have a kid. If she wanted to do that, then they could hire someone who would do her work. The office backed down.

(2) Provide low-income parents with subsidies to stay at home and care for their infants themselves

Uh huh.. If they want to breed then they can work to support them. My mother worked in the 50s and 60s when it was the norm for mommies to stay home. Sorry, but I would actully take some anti-nausea pills and vote for a Republican before I see some woman rewarded with the privilege of sitting at home because she popped out a kid. Talk about an inducement for ‘get pregnant, don’t have to work’!! Nope, never, not happening.

Subsidize daycare (a good job for other women to do who are on welfare or getting subsidized childcare) but make them GO TO WORK.

(3) Incentives for businesses to make part-time and flex-time work financially viable.

Flex-time doesn’t work when a small business needs its staff there during business hours.

Part-time employees to fill a full-time job are an impossible nuisance. One spends too much time bringing the part-timer up to speed on what has been going on, what needs done and what was done in their absence.

“Financially viable”???? Right – wouldn’t we all like to get paid for 40 hours a week and only have to work 20! Maybe journalists can do that but no lawyer in a small practice can only show up part-time. The courts don’t care if the individual has designated certain regular business hours as “work free” – you will be there or else. The tasks can’t be shoved off on someone else – they have their own commitments.

Does she propose making service and retail jobs “financially viable” as part-time work??? Paying $16 and $20 and $30 per hour??? Would be nice but all those who want their cheap goods and cheap restuarant meals will never go along with it.

This ‘proposal’ is clearly designed to only benefit those women who already have flexible hours and job duties and the skills to command a substantial wage. What is fraudulent is the effort to portray it as a viable goal for the other 90% of women in the workforce.

I strongly suggest that Ms. Warner get out of Washington and New York (or whatever rarified atmosphere in which she dwells) and come out into the small cities and towns of the rest of the country. She needs to talk less to those women who live in her world of being employed by large companies, having the skills to do work at the time and place of their choosing, and the ability to command an income far far far in excess of the median per capita income – we are talking a LOT less than $40,000 here and far closer to $20-30,000 a year or full-time work among the enormous majority of women.

A prolonged stay in rural and semi-rural commmunities would do her a world of good. I would even settle for a small to medium sized city. But a very strong dose of reality about wages,and staffing at the majority of employers in this country is most definitely in order!!!

As Fran Ellers said — “Yes to these kinds of family values, yes to making them a priority so that all families have a fighting chance for their kids to succeed in school, in work, in life. Yes, yes, yes.”

“In short, we need to make the kind of glorious life that’s enjoyed by upper-middle-class mothers and grandmothers like Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues possible for everyone else.”

Huh?

This seems to be the problem with the thinking of so many today. It’s assumed by many that the “problem” with families is either (1) that they don’t have enough money to live an upper middle class life or (2) that they don’t have enough time for one another because they’re working too hard to have an upper middle class life. Unfortunately, the two are usually irreconcilable and, by definition, not everyone can be “upper middle class”. (It’s kind of like everyone being “above average.”)

A big problem with families – and with the country in general (read Friedman’s “The World is Flat”) – is that people don’t want to delay gratification. Everyone in America wants a family and kids but don’t want the sacrifices required to raise them, which usually come in time spent at work, and, thus, the money earned there. People seem to think they have a “right” to an upper-middle-class life, and if they don’t want to work for it, the government should tax everyone and give it to them. Give me a break.

I am shocked and disappointed to read the comments submitted in response to this article. How uncharitable and short-sighted these women commenters are! All of us should keep in mind that the present children of this country are the citizens that we will all have to co-exist with as we, ourselves, age here. If these coming citizens have been starved for early attention due to lack of the truly necessary attention of constant family or hired care-givers for pressing economic/inadequate nurturing, then WE as a collective society will reap the consequences of the effect on their attitudes and responses.

Other “advanced” countries provide assistance to young parents. Look at nothern Europe. It should not be the responsibility of individual businesses, but rather the general population to pay for needed assistance to young parents.

It is indeed regretable that seemingly irresponsible people “pop out” babies—–as that ugly-speaking comment writer made the remark–but that does not do away with the fact that these babies and the adults that they will become are here, being formed by the forces that all of us shape. We will be living with them and they will make our tax-base and be our legal voters.

Let’s be both kind, and also practical. I refer to enlightened self-interest. (I’ll bet that some of the most unkind remarks made in Comments are from writers who would consider themselves “Christian”. Whould their Christ even recognize them as they voice these unkind opinions?

The only real consideration that I need is a workday that corresponds with the school schedule. Part-time doesn’t do it — most often it involves 3 full days rather than 4 or 5, six hour days. I often think of the enormous amount of untapped ability and unused education in just my neighborhood — well educated moms and some dads staying at home all day to be there for the family because they cannot find a flexible schedule. The flexible schedule that really supports family is the 8:30 or 9 – 3 slot. I find that that reduced schedule is often reserved as the reward that a mom or dad gets for staying on the job after having a child. It is not avaialable to the person applying from outside.

While I agree with you in theory, that we need to do something about the plight of the American family, in practice this is not the government’s problem. People, especially lower income people, have to be taught family planning. I one bought a new car he/she could not afford, the end result is repossession and bad credit, while the car goes on to a new, and more responsible owner. Unfortunately, this does not apply to children. Yet, people keep having them with the same lack of responsibility they showed when purchasing that expensive car. Why should our government subsidize this lack of financial responsibility? Having children may satisfy an immature emotional need in many but without responsible planning will, undoubtably, turn into a miserable situation for the parents and the child.

Ms Warner is living in a utopian dream world! There is not enough money today or for that matter, will there ever be, to implement the agenda she espouses. Ms. Scott’s thoughtful commentary is right on point.

I suggest you pick up a copy of “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls. Government subsidies/aid/help for the “unfortunate” folks to “whom life has dealt a bad hand” is *not* sacrificing the welfare of the rich for that of the poor. It is rather, the manifestation of the philosphy that to those whom much is given at least *something* is expected in return. It is also simple economics. The marginal value of a dollar is vastly different to a person who makes $10K, or $30K, or $75K from its value to one who makes $100K, or $200K, or $1M. Taking $1 from the rich and giving it to the poor is not just a moral good, it is economic maximization. Furthermore, nobody, not even the Swedes tax the rich into poverty — there is, and will always be a gap between the richest and the poorest. Is making the ends of the spectrum a little less far apart really so bad?

Many posters make excellent comments about placing unfair burdens on employers, and the problem of singling out certain employees for special treatment. However, the one segment of society that can certainly claim special status is our children. Investing in them, even if it means higher taxes (cough, for the wealthy, cough), is clearly justifiable.

But I do think that employees can start by voting with their feet. If enough americans can learn to prioritize their family life over their material wealth, then the work culture will eventually change to reflect that. Of course that means accepting and even encouraging people to opt out (men and women).

Judith excellent piece. Please decide if you want this family friendly issue to go forward or if you just want to demean the ‘trur colors’ of the other side. If it is the former, you have an issue that will draw a lot of support from all sides. If just want to sound like a liberal Rush Limbaugh and flame the other side, it probably won’t. It is always a tough choice — get it right or just get even.

It is sexist and way off the mark to demand of women legislators that they be the ones to handle family issues. There are two basic reasons why women and children are in bad shape: 1)they are not considered men’s problems; 2)men have all the power. And “men’s” issues are everything involving “reality”. In other words, women and children are nobody, in our political system and, actually, in society in general.

This remains true in spite of highly visible successful women. They are still the exception, no matter their numbers. And it is ridiculous to still think that women have options to not work! Only well-off white women! Especially in today’s economy, both parents have to work–but most households don’t even have two parents! Let’s get real.

The women’s movement has stalled out because of this kind of thinking. Instead, women and their supporters should rebuild a huge feminist movement and demand of all of society that women and children’s well-being and thriving be guaranteed. Exactly as the rights of business are guaranteed.

Which brings me to another concern. The comment by Ann Scott above was ridiculous. The real essence of her whole argument is that small businesses can’t afford anything. She might as well say small businesses can’t afford benefits. And any company can actually make a case that they really can’t afford to pay anyone anything for their labor!

If we applied to businesses big or small the same logic that is applied to individual human beings, we would have to say: what it takes it what people need and want. If you can’t afford what it takes, you can’t afford to be in business. So get out of business. You don’t have an automatic constitutional right to be in business!

And boy, would we all be better off! The solution to the problems of all human beings is that we all take care of each other, just like we started out millions of years ago. We each of us help produce society’s wealth; all of it should go to meeting all the requirements of each of us to survive, thrive and succeed at something positive in life. If business gets in the way–to hell with business. Workers can run enterprises by themselves. Who needs profit-makers? They’re the cause of all the problems.

The only empty materialism that I’ve witness in American is how our children have a lot more toys to play with, and many kinds of toy stores to choose from than any other nation!

We’ve got more kids’s clothing stores – I’m not talking about the Salvation Army – family restaurants where the kids can now eat at the bar! There are just as many low income families patronizing these places as upper income families.

What’s corrupting our country is that families do spend more – mostly on their kids – lower income families included. How do you think Wal-Mart and Toys”R”Us became so successful in America? How do you think family restaurants became so popular as well?

Why should are tax dollars and business pay for family materialism? For those that are truely needed, there’s also in this country plenty of charitable organizations to help support there needs from day care to education and in between.